Summary: Ms X complains about the Council’s handling of night-time roadworks close to her home. The Ombudsman will not investigate the complaint because it is unlikely we can add to the investigation already carried out by the Council and an investigation is unlikely to lead to a different outcome.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to as Ms X, says the Council did not consult with residents or notify her that loud night-time roadworks would be taking place close to her home. The roadworks affected her sleep and physical and mental wellbeing for which she should be compensated.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
3. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe:

• it is unlikely we would find fault, or
• it is unlikely we could add to any previous investigation by the Council, or
• it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. In considering the complaint I reviewed the information provided by Ms X and the Council. I gave Ms X the opportunity to comment on my draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

5. The Council decided to resurface a road in its area which is very close to Ms X’s home. Unusually, and with the aim of minimising traffic disruption in the town centre, it decided to do the works at night.
6. In advance of the works, the Council arranged for a hand delivered letter to be sent to residents in the locality who would be affected and put up notices advising of the planned work. The letter advised the road to be re-surfaced would be closed between 8pm and 05.00am on weekdays for, it was hoped, four days. Ms X says she did not receive the letter or see the notices.
7. The work started and because of the noise and the impact it was having on her, Ms X complained to the Council. She said she had not been consulted or notified and that the works should have been carried out during the daytime rather than night-time and that the noise was above legal levels.
8. The Council apologised for the distress the road works caused her but explained why in this case the decision had been made to carry them out at night. It confirmed Advance Warning letters had been posted by hand to residents, but it could not ascertain why Ms X had not received a letter.

Assessment

9. While it is unfortunate Ms X was unaware of the works before they started, there are insufficient grounds to warrant an investigation by the Ombudsman.
10. The Council was under no duty to consult residents and it took the unusual step of carrying out night-time work due to a number of factors which it decided made this a necessity. It is not our role to review the merits of the Council’s decision here even though Ms X may not agree with it.
11. Ms X says the noise she recorded from the works was well in excess of that allowed by law. The Council says it followed standard working practices in carrying out the work and that as it received no reports of excessive noise at the time it did not take any calibrated readings.
12. Re-surfacing road works are by their nature very noisy and it is clear Ms X was affected by the noise. However, while this is unfortunate, it is unlikely we can add to the investigation already carried out by the Council and an investigation would be unlikely to lead to a recommendation of compensation.

Back to top

Final decision

13. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because it is unlikely we can add to the investigation already carried out by the Council and an investigation is unlikely to lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman